October 31, 2005

Our elite commitment to multiculturalism also hamstrings us from taking the needed security steps. For 30 years, our schools have pounded home the creed that all cultures are of equal meritor, more accurately perhaps, that no culture is worse than the Wests. Millions of Americans consequently arent sure whether radical Islam is just another legitimate alternative to the dominant Western narrative. Typical of this mind-set, UCLA English professor Saree Makdisi, excusing the London subway terrorism, wrote in the Los Angeles Times that deliberately butchering commuters is no worse than accidentally killing civilians while targeting terrorists in a war zone. American and British media have devoted hours to wondering what would drive a seemingly normal young Muslim to destroy himself and others, Makdisi said. No one has paused to ask what would cause a seemingly normal young Christian or Jew to strap himself into a warplane and drop bombs on a village, knowing full well his bombs will inevitably kill civilians (and, of course, soldiers).

It is a tremendous historical irony that Americas liberal Left, embracing moral equivalence in this fashion, has all but refused to denounce the illiberal ideology of our enemiesan ideology that supports polygamy, gender apartheid, religious intolerance, hatred of homosexuals, and patriarchy. Sometimes, the terrorists even win outright praise: perhaps the most popular filmmaker of election year 2004 was Michael Moore, who celebrated the suicide bombers and terrorists of Iraq as minutemen akin to our own Founding Fathers.

If we are not sure as a nation that Islamists really are foes of Western values but instead see them as another persecuted group with legitimate gripes against us (occupied Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan, Abu Ghraib, GuantÃ¡namo Bay, colonialism, the Crusades), then it becomes increasingly hard to identify, let alone fight, the practitioners of Islamic fanaticism at home. Even the military bureaucracy seems to be having trouble naming the enemy: witness the rebranding by some Pentagon officials of the war on terrorism into the global war against violent extremism. While the original nomenclature was unsatisfactorywars arent fought against a tactic but rather against those using itthe new name is even less helpful. Our fight against jihadists is different from our struggle with recalcitrant Serbian nationalists or Kim Jong-ils crackpot extremism. We are at war with radical Islam, Islamic fascism, Islamismthe radical Islamic polemic, in the words of Sarkozy. We should never lose sight of this fact. President Bushs October speech describing our struggle against Islamic terrora first for the administrationis an encouraging, if belated, sign.

Isn't it a fact that Victor Davis Hanson has basically been re-writing the same column for three years now?

Phrase the question this way: "On a scale of 1 to 10, how likely is it that VDH's next column will explain how the west will always prevail because of our open markets, freedom of expression, emphasis on science and technology, and robust military tradition?"

This is just more of the same. Not that VDH's points aren't valid, but jeez, get a new routine.

Posted by: Megan at October 31, 2005 08:50 AM (XyQ+P)

2
Come now, Megan, don't be so harsh. You wouldn't criticize a math professor for always ranting about how 2 + 2 = 4, would you?

VDH may be saying the same things over and over again, but at least he says *the right things*, and says them well. I cut him slack for the repetition (not to mention his excellent books).

That, and Ace told me to stick up for him when you punch him. He's either a gentleman who won't stand up to girls, or a drunken coward afraid of fightin' vagina.

3The Islamist seduction also includes disturbed souls here in the U.S. who belong to no formal terrorist group but who emulate jihadists after exposure to their ideas.

And while these terrorists are in jail, receiving care paid for by law abiding, tax paying American citizens, they are recruiting more terrorists from within.

To hell with deportation. The same with putting them in prison where they can recruit and spread their poison. Conviction should result either in the death penalty or an attitude adjustment by semi-daily electro-shock therapy.

Posted by: compos mentis at October 31, 2005 08:59 AM (xHpUK)

4
Well we could just turn it into a contest? (Yes, I'm sure it's been done before). What to name the war against the bugs?

Bug stomp?
La Cucaracha?
International conspiracy to do the right thing?

As far as liberals and the gwot? Ignore them. In a pinch .... be nice to them (I know, easier said than done. Thinking of them as 'challenged' can mnake it easier though).

5Isn't it a fact that Victor Davis Hanson has basically been re-writing the same column for three years now?

Staying on message ain't a sin.

Posted by: JFH at October 31, 2005 09:05 AM (arxyn)

6
If VDH repeats himself (and he does), it's because his numbingly obvious points need to be repeated. A newspaper columnist in 1945 who said, "People, we're fighting the Germans and Japanese!" would have sounded kind of dumb. Then again, FDR didn't spend four years skirting the issue.

Posted by: utron at October 31, 2005 10:08 AM (CgIkY)

7
Yeah, considering other media outlets lack of focus/patriotism etc. Its good to see someone beat the drum, especially when they're so eloquent doing it.

Posted by: Iblis at October 31, 2005 10:30 AM (9221z)

8Isn't it a fact that Victor Davis Hanson has basically been re-writing the same column for three years now?

Is he talking about Islamists? He sounds like the left talking about us rednecks.

Posted by: Scot at October 31, 2005 11:37 AM (GDOa/)

10“No one has paused to ask what would cause a seemingly normal young Christian or Jew to strap himself into a warplane and drop bombs on a village, knowing full well his bombs will inevitably kill civilians (and, of course, soldiers).”

Why asky why? A Jewish or Christian person would bomb civilians under only one condition - if he or she were a liberal leftist. The liberal left support the terrorists and every nasty regime they can find because they are afraid. They are afraid of going hungry and afraid of being sick and afraid of heat and afraid of cold and afraid of every damn thing, but they are most afraid of terrorists. Their solution is to capitulate, in the obvious and completely vain hope that if they take it up the ass they will be spared.

Lord God spare us those who hide their sniveling cowardice behind so-called 'principles.'

Posted by: BrendaK at October 31, 2005 12:23 PM (KEe+h)

11
“No one has paused to ask what would cause a seemingly normal young Christian or Jew to strap himself into a warplane and drop bombs on a village, knowing full well his bombs will inevitably kill civilians (and, of course, soldiers).”

That's because it's a very, very stupid question.

Why am I not surprised that it's coming from a UCLA English professor?

Posted by: model_1066 at October 31, 2005 09:06 PM (chXlE)

12
I read this article a while back, it explains why these leftists look at these third world terrorists with such admiration:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4954

Its by a lefty who explains the whole idea behind immizeration and how the third world is the newest source of revolutionaries to the communist mind (since America has failed to produce immizerated workers. Instead, we have soccer moms and NASCAR dads).